list_recent_template_tasks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: result ordering is newest-first, pagination is cursor-based via the last task id, and continuation is signalled by an X-Has-Next header. That header contract is exactly the kind of response-side detail annotations cannot convey. It falls short of 5 because it omits defaults, what happens when no cursor is supplied, and what fields each task carries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then pagination mechanics, then the underlying route. Nothing is redundant and each sentence contributes actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool whose safety profile is already covered by annotations, the description covers pagination adequately. But with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, an agent still lacks the response shape, the meaning of 'recent', default page size, and any resolution of the count/limit duplication.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does explain count as page size and before as the last task id cursor. However, the 'limit' parameter is never mentioned and its relationship to count (apparently a duplicate) is unresolved, which is a real ambiguity for an agent filling the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List recent tasks, newest first') and grounds it in an endpoint scoped to /project/{project_id}/templates/{template_id}/tasks/last, so the template scoping is implied. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like list_template_tasks, list_recent_tasks, or list_tasks, leaving that inference to the agent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear operational guidance for pagination — use count and before (the last task id) and watch the X-Has-Next header. But it offers no guidance on when to choose this over list_template_tasks or list_recent_tasks, which is the more consequential selection decision given the crowded sibling set.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.